Orissa High Court
Kedar Chandra Pattanaik vs Mamata Pattanaik And Another on 7 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.92 of 2022
Kedar Chandra Pattanaik ..... Petitioner
Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Mamata Pattanaik and another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 07.09.2022
RPFAM No.92 of 2022 & RPFAM No.40 of 2022
5. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Both the RPFAMs have been filed assailing judgment
and order dated 29th November, 2021 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Cuttack in Crl. Proceeding No.402 of 2011
allowing an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3. For the sake of convenience and discussion, parties are
described as per their social status before learned Judge, Family
Court, Cuttack. As it appears from record, Kedar Chandra
Pattanaik (Petitioner in RPFAM No.92 of 2022) is the husband
of Mamata Pattanaik and father of Madhusmita Pattnaik
(Petitioners in RPFAM No.40 of 2022 ).
4. Due to a matrimonial discord, wife and daughter are
staying separately. As the wife has no independent source of
income and she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter,
an application (Crl.P. No.402 of 2011) was filed under Section
125 Cr.P.C. claiming Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to
each of the wife and daughter. Learned Judge, Family Court,
// 2 //
taking into consideration the materials on record, came to hold
the gross income of the husband to be Rs.42,237/- and his net
salary to be Rs.33,960/- per month and on that basis, directed
the husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and
Rs.11,000/- per month to the daughter from the date of
application, i.e.,18th July, 2011.
5. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the salary
of the husband for the month of June, 2021 was taken into
consideration by learned Judge, Family Court, while
adjudicating the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The
husband has his old mother depending upon him apart from his
own expenses and other social obligations. Without considering
the same, the impugned order has been passed. It is his
contention that while issuing notice (prior to conversion, i.e.,
MATA No.24 of 2022) in RPFAM No.92 of 2022, this Court,
vide order dated 21st March, 2022, directed the husband to pay
a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to wife and Rs.4,000/- per
month to the daughter. The husband is strictly complying with
the said order and is paying the aforesaid maintenance
regularly.
5.1 In view of the ratio decided in the case of Kalyan Dey
Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy reported in
(2017) 14 SCC 200 , the husband is liable to pay 1/4th of his
income as maintenance to the wife. In the case of Rajnesh Vs.
Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also laid down the guidelines to assess the
maintenance in a petition under 125 Cr.P.C. Without applying
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
// 3 //
impugned order has been passed. Hence, the quantum of
maintenance requires reconsideration.
6. Learned counsel for the wife and daughter vehemently
objects to the above submission. It is his submission that they
have also filed RPFAM No.40 of 2022 assailing the self-same
impugned order for enhancement of the maintenance. Learned
Judge, Family Court, while passing the impugned order, did not
at all take into consideration the requirements of the wife and
daughter and directed the husband to pay a meager amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife. The daughter who is pursuing
her studies requires an enhanced amount to meet her increasing
study expenses. Hence, the impugned order requires
reconsideration.
7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of record, it appears that learned Judge, Family Court
on assessment of evidence, has come to the conclusion that the
gross salary of the husband per month to be Rs.42,237/- and his
net salary is Rs.33,960/- calculated as per his salary slip for the
month of June, 2021. Taking into consideration the same, the
impugned order has been passed.
8. In view of the ratio decided in the case of Kalyan Dey
Chowdhury (supra) and Rajnesh (supra), this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Court while assessing maintenance
should have taken into consideration the respective income of
the parties, dependency on the husband, requirements of wife
and child as well as social obligation of the husband.
9. In that view of the matter this court accepting the
submission of learned counsel for the husband that he is strictly
// 4 //
complying with the interim order dated 21st March, 2022
passed, while issuing notice in RPFAM No.92 of 2022, this
Court feels that the amount of maintenance directed to be paid
by the husband to the wife by virtue of the interim order by this
Court is just and reasonable.
10. Accordingly, this Court disposes of both the RPFAMs
with a direction that the husband (Petitioner in MATA No.24 of
2022 before it was converted and registered as RPFAM No.92
of 2022), shall go on paying Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife-
Mamata Pattnaik and Rs.4,000/- per month to the daughter-
Madhusmita Pattnaik from the date of application of the
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
11. Interim order dated 21st March, 2022 gets merged with
this order.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
